Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral rule that played matches never move. However, it does not say whether a start_time shift affects all unplayed matches or only one, whether the change is reversible via undo_last_change, or what happens on a conflicting court/slot.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the three operating modes front-loaded and the single hard constraint placed last for emphasis. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with nested objects the description leaves real gaps: scope of a start_time shift, precedence between start_time and delay_minutes, valid slot/court semantics, and recovery via undo_last_change.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%: start_time, request_id and tournament_key are documented in the schema, while delay_minutes and the nested move_match fields (match_id, court_name, slot) are not. The description partially compensates by mapping 'add a delay' and 'court/slot' to those undocumented parameters, but it never states whether the three modes are mutually exclusive or combinable, which is the key semantic risk.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation ('shift', 'delay', 'move') on a specific resource (match start times/courts within a tournament), and enumerates the three modes that correspond to the three top-level parameters. An agent can distinguish this from read-only siblings like get_schedule or undo_last_change, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear triggering conditions ('shift the start time, add a delay, or move one match to a specific court/slot') and one explicit when-not rule: played matches never move. It stops short of naming alternatives such as undo_last_change for reverting a reschedule, so 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.